Brighton cyclist ordered to pay £1,000 for ignoring one-way sign

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:21:50 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


"The force said that the aim was partly intended to raise awareness
that the
rules of the road apply to motorists and cyclists alike"

It's ridiculous just how many times this has to be said. Either
cyclists are
inherently thick and cannot grasp the simple concept, or they just have
absolutely no regard for the law. Or both.

Or...... cars are bigger and heavier and going the wrong way up a one
way street in a car is FAR more dangerous.

There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property. A person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:07:35 -0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" considered Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:23:25
-0000 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:08:09 -0000, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 20:15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:55:34 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 09/01/2013 23:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:



Easy to say but sometimes the police can be difficult to spot. I didn't
manage it once and got stopped with extreme prejudice.

Police are very easy to spot, they stick out like a sore thumb.
Covertness ain't their strongpoint.


Mind you I saw a copper last night with a hidden police car and a speed
gun checking the traffic coming the other way. Perhaps it was just
surveillance. The presence of a cop car would have slowed the traffic.
Maybe they will be back to start nicking later.

GATSOs have to be visible by law, so why should mobile traps be any different?

To catch all the idiots who think that laws only need to be observed
when there's a camera on a well publicised pole overlooking the area.

You're missing the point. It's inconsistent. Do they want us to see the traps so we go slower at accident blackspots, or do they want to catch people unawares? There is no reason one set should be hidden and one in plain view.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

When I told my mum I was going to buy a motorbike she went crazy:
"Don't you remember what happened to your brother? He was killed on one! Why would you want to buy one when you could just have his?"

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:21:50 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


"The force said that the aim was partly intended to raise awareness
that the
rules of the road apply to motorists and cyclists alike"

It's ridiculous just how many times this has to be said. Either
cyclists are
inherently thick and cannot grasp the simple concept, or they just
have
absolutely no regard for the law. Or both.

Or...... cars are bigger and heavier and going the wrong way up a one
way street in a car is FAR more dangerous.

There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property. A
person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.


the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity, ignoring
them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and damage
property, which is why there are laws which govern their use.

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message

Quite. The right arm “do not overtake” signal is only ever given as a last
resort to discourage someone from doing something very stupid. It is a bit
like shouting “STOP” to someone who is about to run off the edge of a
cliff. Then they turn back and shout “don’t you dare tell me what to
dooooooooooooooooooooooooo” :-)

The difference being that if someone decides to drive, despite advice, over
a cliff it's their problem. (There are a few that post here that would make
it worth taking the deckchair to watch the entertainment.) If they ignore
your (as a cyclist) indication of "I'm here too" it becomes your problem.
Their only problem is a bit of paperwork.

On 11/01/2013 19:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:21:50 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


"The force said that the aim was partly intended to raise awareness
that the
rules of the road apply to motorists and cyclists alike"

It's ridiculous just how many times this has to be said. Either
cyclists are
inherently thick and cannot grasp the simple concept, or they just
have
absolutely no regard for the law. Or both.

Or...... cars are bigger and heavier and going the wrong way up a one
way street in a car is FAR more dangerous.

There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property. A
person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.


the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity, ignoring
them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and damage
property, which is why there are laws which govern their use.



And of course they can also cause accidents.

On 11/01/2013 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:21:50 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


"The force said that the aim was partly intended to raise awareness
that the
rules of the road apply to motorists and cyclists alike"

It's ridiculous just how many times this has to be said. Either
cyclists are
inherently thick and cannot grasp the simple concept, or they just
have
absolutely no regard for the law. Or both.

Or...... cars are bigger and heavier and going the wrong way up a one
way street in a car is FAR more dangerous.

There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property.
A person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.

Are you *reading* this, PhilO?

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:31:47 -0000, Mrcheerful wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:



There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property. A
person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.


the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity, ignoring
them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and damage
property, which is why there are laws which govern their use.

Cyclists rarely cause injuries, and when they do they're usually minor. So the law should concentrate on the cars which are far more dangerous.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The tired doctor was awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night. "Please, you have to come right over," pleaded the distraught young mother. "My child has swallowed a contraceptive."
The physician dressed quickly, but before he could get out the door, the phone rang again.
"You don't have to come over after all," the woman said with a sigh of relief. "My husband just found another one."

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:40:03 -0000, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 11/01/2013 19:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:




You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property. A
person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.


the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity, ignoring
them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and damage
property, which is why there are laws which govern their use.



And of course they can also cause accidents.

Not big ones.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:57:58 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 11/01/2013 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:



There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property.
A person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and LIGHTER.

Are you *reading* this, PhilO?

Does he normally *listen* to it?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.

On 11/01/2013 21:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:57:58 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 11/01/2013 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:57:05 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqpuin1bytk5n5@i7-940...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:52:45 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 17:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:



There should be a law against that.....


You don't often see cars going the wrong way up a one-way street.
Cyclists seem to think the law does not apply to them.

Because they are SMALLER AND LESS DANGEROUS, god you're thick.


So which part of the law becomes irrelevant due to size? and at what
size
exactly? Have you told your MP about these missing bits in the law?

The law is to prevent accidents which hurt people or destroy property.
A person on a bike doesn't do that, because they are SMALLER and
LIGHTER.

Are you *reading* this, PhilO?

Does he normally *listen* to it?

No idea.

But he currently has a virtual wager on with other posters that no-one
in this NG ever claims that cyclists cannot injure pedestrians.

You have claimed it, so he has lost.